Skip to main content

tv   Today in Washington  CSPAN  July 21, 2009 2:00am-6:00am EDT

2:00 am
be optimistic, because the opportunities before us now and work the opportunities our parents had. there are new miracles of science to be found in americans will find them. there are new jobs that we cannot imagine and americans will create them. there are new economic frontiers to be settled and, yes, americans will compete to win them. the greatest time to be an american is before us. all of us today have a great and noble purpose. as our country calls upon each of us to rise to this critical moment and keep america the greatest and healthy as country in the world. thank you and god bless america. >> we looked up to some questions. bill free to pass them up here. mr. steele, it is morally -- is that morally acceptable for 40 million americans to be without health insurance? >> i don't know what that is a
2:01 am
consideration for a politician versus out pastor. it's imperative that the political leadership get it right. it is morally wrong to saddle future generations with a burden that they cannot pay. . it is morally wrong to stake a claim in the future in which the government controls your individuality, the choices that you make, and how you lead your lives. so i think that this question is a very important one, with respect to the 30 or so million people who do not have health care. we as a nation have committed ourselves to doing everything possible to help them. but we have to do it in such a way that we don't hurt others along the way. and this opportunity to fix, if and this opportunity to fix, if you will, the system to bring
2:02 am
into full insurance is a great opportunity we can't miss the north mess up. anour concern is that in a rush to try to get it done, we are losing greater opportunities to secure that future so that in five, 10 or so years we are not facing something more catastrophic than just 30 million people without insurance. we're talking potentially under this plan upwards of so a hundred 19 million people are so being kicked out of the health care insurance that they currently have. and that's a moral consideration as well. >> why didn't the republicans when they held both houses and the white house to do something substantial to address the health care issue? >> well, i think that, you know, there were efforts along the way, certainly there was the medicare part d., regulation d., passage that the republicans did get through. there's always been a debate about that particular piece of legislation. but i think the other reality
2:03 am
is, you know, the will to do it. and the pressures that have been mounting over the last few years have just grown so great, and i think the will is there now for the people to be involved in this, as well as others. but i just think there has been just a general lack of focus on this issue by many in both parties. i've always believed that if you're going to do health care you have to do it right. you just can't do it partially. you can't have a conversation with just trial lawyers and insurance companies. you have to include patients and doctors. you can't have a conversation without including the pharmaceutical companies. you can't have a conversation about health care without including everyone who is touched by the issue. and in the past, that has not been the way we approached it. it's always been piecemeal. from both republicans and democrats, and i think i applaud the president with the desire to do this. my concern is the rush to do it.
2:04 am
too fast, too much, too soon. we are not going to get this done effectively and well in the next 10 days. i don't think anyone in this room believes that and i know the people out in america don't believe it. and what will the bill look like? what kind of health or do you get for something that's done in 10 days? when it took a year and a half for them to put the medicare system in place in the 1960s. a year and a half to put medicare in place, and were going to revamp the entire nation's health care system, one fifth of our economy, in 10 days. in 10 days. amazing. and so i think we all need to stop and get serious about what we are confronting here, and stop playing this washington game of russian roulette, if you will, with the livelihood and businesses and health care of our communities. >> wasn't as all dedicated in the last election and your side lost wa?
2:05 am
>> i don't know who got sued, in the last election. yeah, we lost the last election. i get it. we lose an election and therefore we just now sit back and let whatever happens happen? really? that's a serious question, someone asked that question? the last time i checked i was an american citizen. i didn't stop being a concerned american because i lost an election. all right? so i think the question is a little bit silly. because i think it's important for all americans right now, regardless of who lost into one. i know a lot of democrats who won last year are right now sitting there going what the heck is this, is this a change i voted for? i know a lot of democrats who won last year who are voting against were walking out on this legislation. i know a lot of democrats who won last year who are scratching their heads going, this isn't a bargain i bargained for.
2:06 am
are the americans? i think the r. and that's why they are concerned. so for those of us who lost we are not giving up our right to be concerned about our country. and its prospects and its history and its health care. >> when will the republicans propose the alternative legislation they have been saying since may that they have been drafting? >> there has been any numbers of effort by members of the house and the senate to put within the president's bill effect of changes or accommodations, if you will, to the totality of this process. now, you know, the republicans can get up tomorrow and introduce its own bill, but you and i know how washington works. the bill that matters is the one that the leadership puts in place, the democrats have the leadership. but it's tough to do when you have been locked out of the process. it's tough to do with your staff
2:07 am
is not included in the draft. it's tough to do with the leadership is not included in the discussions. and then you are given a bill at the 11th hour that says here, you guys go vote on this this afternoon. and that's not a bipartisan process. republicans have, as i mentioned in the text of my speech, have been working with democrats in the beginning of the year to put in place and crap, comprehensive bipartisan health care reform. legislation. and they have been stymied and they have been set aside and castigated as the party of no, we have put in that position or i'm here today, we are the party of saying no to expanse of government, no to an increase in taxes and spending. that's the know we are concerned about. we want to be, we want to work with this president. we want to be at the table. we want to work with nancy and harry. but they are making it awfully
2:08 am
difficult when they don't even include members of the leadership and staff in the process. >> do republicans still support the senator mccain's plan to tax high-cost employer coverage to finance tax credits to help the uninsured? >> that's something that the republicans and the house and senate are going to work through. i know there are different points of view on that particular issue. i stated very clearly in my comments that the idea of taxing health insurance premiums to me is not the way to go. i just don't think taxes work in this economy. i just don't think that is how you are going to solve this particular problem. but the republican leadership in the house and senate will work through with senator mccain and others, what is an appropriate
2:09 am
form to take. and we will see when they come out. >> do republicans support an individual requirement to get coverage? >> and individual requirement, what do you mean by individual requirement? >> to require people to get health coverage. >> do we require individuals to get health coverage? again, that is one of those areas where there's a different opinion to buy some in the house and the senate on this. look, i don't do policy. i'm not a legislator. my point in coming here today was to begin to set a tone and a theme, if you will, and approach to addressing this issue that is centered bottom of. is centered on real people who are struggling with this issue every single day. my hope and my expectation is that the very smart people that we have elected in the house and the senate on both sides will come together and recognize exactly what the american people need and want. because they are telling them.
2:10 am
trust me, this white house is pulling just like the dnc is going, just like the rnc is going. so everyone has their fingers on the polls after. which again, it befuddles me to why we are going down this road of more government expansion, more government taxation, more government spending, more government intrusion, when the polls and the people are saying they want as little of that as possible. so we're hoping that the folks on the hill are paying attention to the people in america who are making very clear what it is what they want and what they don't want. >> why haven't congressional republicans united behind the single approach to oppose democratic bills? wouldn't that make your party more effective? >> again, that's a strategy that the leadership works out. i don't get to make that play call. and so i., you know, i had enough play called i got to worry about at the rnc.
2:11 am
and so my job now is to work in close coronation with them as possible as they see fit that helps them get their message out to the american people. and they make the decision about whom, with whom and who they work with with her colleagues and with each other. >> does a president obama's health care plan represent socialism? >> yes. next question. >> in 1965, republicans said medicare would lead to socialized medicine. how are you so sure health care overhaul will have the dire consequences you predict when your party was so wrong about medicare? >> well, i think that there is -- i think that there is a legitimate debate there about the impact that medicare and medicaid are having on the overall fabric of our economy. you look at the cause and effect that you have to keep feeding
2:12 am
this particular engine. i think though that in this case, unlike 1965, the level of spending, the level of government control, and intrusion is far greater and much more expansive than anything we have ever seen. come on folks, you guys, you are journalists. you scrutinize this step if you are sitting here telling me that this is not unprecedented? that even you aren't shocked at the degree to which this administration is bringing the government, not just into our lives, but into the very relationship between the doctor and patient? between the patient and the insurance company, between insurance company and the market? so i think that what we are talking about here is something far beyond anything we've seen in 1965 or since 1965. this is unprecedented government
2:13 am
intrusion into the private sector period. and you can sweeten it anyway you want, but it still tastes better and i think the american people know that. >> how would your plan make the $12800 affordable to those who can't afford it? how many of the uninsured would it cover, and what cost in subsidies would you change the way doctors and hospitals are paid for patient rather than per procedure? >> i think that's a very good, very good question and it really goes to the crux of what we have to get to, the meat of the situation. really looking at the fiscal as well as the relationship impact that's involved here. look, i'm not proposing any quick fixes. i don't have my head in the sand or my eye, you know, up in the sky dreaming. i know this is going to take hard work and it's going to take
2:14 am
a real effort by both parties to come to the table can seriously talk about health care. not just in the abstract, not just in the self interest of promoting one special interest over another year but in the interest of promoting what's best for the people. so we are looking at how we are going to pay for it, how you take that $12800 cost to families, and how that is a proportioned and how that is paid out. that is a legitimate question but we haven't begun to do that dissection yet. we are rushing to get a health care bill passed by the end of the year, by the end of the month. without that discussion. without anyone answering that question, who really need to. not michael steele. i can prolific it all day long or what we should do but it's the legislators who write the bill. they are the ones who have to put it into practice and into law. but we're not not having that discussion. i can even get into the room.
2:15 am
it is a thousand page bill that can run for in the morning. no one read and nobody in the democratic party voted for it. what are we going to do with this bill? as the congressman. call your congressman and ask him if they started watching -- reading the bill. they can't, and will get it at the last minute and will vote on it and the will to they have done something. what they have done is put us on the road to ruin if they do that. i want to see us get to the table so that the people who need to address the question like that can do it and come back to us and tell us what these costs are really are and what they really mean and how they are going to be paid for. the bottom line still remains, who was born to pay. if you tax every wealthy person in this country, i don't care how you define them, you still
2:16 am
do not cover the cost of what the president is proposing. cut, no. you're not getting a tax cut. you will get a whammy of a tax increase that's going to come in the form of a whole bunch of other taxes besides what you see coming out of your paycheck. >> so for republicans actually get to the table, do they have answers to those questions that were just supposed? what are the going to actually bring to the table? >> i just laid out, do you want me to go through them again? i can go through them again. let's talk about portability. let's talk about tort reform. let's talk about creating networks for small businesses to co-op so they can go in the marketplace and compete for the best insurance packages for their employees. there are a host of ideas that republicans have put on the table that have quite frankly been ignored or they are not part of the discussion. so all i'm saying is, mr. presidenpresident, nancy pelosi, harry reid, let us come
2:17 am
to the table and sit down a real bipartisan way to do this. we like coming down the white house and having a beer and watching the game, but someone is, you know, going to lose a health care opportunity here if we don't get this right. mena, the american people. and so i think that we put on. i just went through the list. i will happy to go through them again if you can get them, but i think, i've laid out in very broad terms and then there are more specific pieces of legislation that our members, house and senate, have proposed that should be part of the bill and part of consideration. >> what will the political price for the republican party be if it succeeds in blocking health care reform? >> i'm not concerned about a political price that the republican party is going to be. i'm concerned about the price of the american people will pay if this thing passes. it's that simple. not looking at this through the rose-colored glasses of what are our political fortunes.
2:18 am
i'm not worried about that. i'm worried about my health care for my family. i'm worried about what my 21 year old son and my 17 year-old son are going to do if they get sick or injured. i'm worried about my mother and my father, god love them, who are still living up here in dc trying to figure how to pay their health care bills. that's my concern. that's a concern of every american. certainly the concern of everyone who does what we do. i just want to do it right. i want us to get it right. and i think that the consequences will come for those who fail here. those who sattel this economy and our people with something they can't afford, not just in this generation but in future generations. so the price to be paid is steep, but it's not a political price. it's an economic one. it's a community one. it's one that your families and your neighborhoods will, you know, really, really come to bear and i think that's a bigger
2:19 am
consideration right now then, you know, who is up and who is down politically. >> okay. in light of the day, i have to ask this question. if we could put a man on the moon 40 years ago why can't we give health care to more than 40 million americans this year? >> bingo. i mean, that's it. that's it. and the addendum to that is why do we have to up in an entire health care system to do that when the polling, everybody's going, it doesn't matter. it's not just republican polling, but everybody. nonpartisan and partisan on the democratic side polling show that the vast majority of americans like their health care coverage. the vast majority of americans like the quality of their health care. the vast majority of americans don't want uncle sam to judge their health care, what they are concerned about is the cost. and so if we can just deal with that issue, that will solve a lot of the opportunities that we
2:20 am
avoided in getting those 40 some million people to the table. now, you've got to look at that number very carefully and just realized that the number may not be as big as you think it is because it includes folks in t case of some who don't qualify for health care, in the case of others who have access to health care but just haven't accessed it because they didn't know they qualified for health care, for medicaid or medicare. and those young folks who say i'm not going to get sick, i don't want to have to pay for and they just opt out altogether. but whatever the situation may be, whether it's one american or 40 million americans, we have to do our level best to make sure that every single day they have quality health care at their fingertips. when they are ready to accept, access it, however they want to access it. and the government should have very, very little to do with that. >> okay. we are almost out of time, but before i ask the last questions we have just a couple of announcements. first of all let me remind our members, teachers beakers
2:21 am
tomorrow, july 21, gayle mcgovern, president and ceo of the american red cross will address a luncheon. and on july 24, representative john conyers and democrat from michigan will address also the press club at luncheon, at a luncheon. also at a luncheon. and also, i would like to give you our national press club mug. but you're not quite off the hook, so here we go. the last 10 years -- we like to make sure you don't run. the last 10 years cbo scoring for the iraq war was to .4 billion, twice the initial ten-year scoring for health care reform. argue similarly worried with the costs of the war? if so, why aren't you expressing those concerns now? >> well, the cost of the war like the cost of everything else certainly is of great concern to
2:22 am
the american people as it is i'm sure to the administration. but i think in a real sense the costs of health care is something that is up close and right here, something that people touch. it's something people have to deal with in a real way. when they go to get their medicines, when they go to get health services. they are either paying or they are seeing what that cost is in a real way. i think that it doesn't, doesn't take away from the fact that the cost of engaging militarily is a cost like all other costs, but when you are looking at the entire cost of health care as a proportion of our gdp, as the bottom line for our state governments. i know in the state of maryland, health care was about 48% of our budget. 30% of that budget was education. so 78% of our budget was tied up
2:23 am
and to think that all the things we did on homeland security and, you know, national defense with respect to the military institutions that we have in our state. was a very small portion of that. so clearly, whether you are talking at a micro level or macrolevel, the cost of health care, the cost of providing that health care is a major, major piece of anyone's budget. and i think that right now this is something that's impacting our economy. it takes up a significant portion of the dollars that we are allocating. and we need to get it under control, and our concern is that additional spending is just out of line. we are not driving this nation into debt. trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars of debt by the spending that's going on right now with the war in iraq. and afghanistan. health care is driving that never. you look at what this administration is proposing, it
2:24 am
is astronomical amounts of cash. and we are going to have to pay that bill. and it's a bill that is related to the health care expenses that this administration wants to put in place. and so i think that, you know, the federal government, the state governments will be grappling with this issue in a real way for sometime, but we need to do so smartly. we need to do so with a sense of urgency, yes, but with the right amount of pause to make sure that we get it right. and right now, i don't think we are getting it right. we are getting it very wrong because it's i think in the long term going to cost us more harm than good that's intended for it to do. thank you all very, very much. >> i would like to thank you all for coming today. i would also like to thank the national press club staff members who helped organize this. melinda cook, pat nelson, joanne
2:25 am
booze and howard rothman. also thanks to the npc library for its research and npc member. the video archive of today's newsmaker is provided by the national press club broadcast operations center, our events are available for download on itunes as well as on our website. nonmembers may purchase transcripts, audio and video tapes by calling (202)662-7598, or e-mailing usd
2:26 am
>> in a few moments, monday's news conference with defense secretary robert gates and joint chiefs chairman mike mullen. in a half-hour, more about the health care debate from judy fader and after that, republican senator john kyl.
2:27 am
and then senator dick durbin. >> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. the senate judiciary committee meets to discuss the supreme court nomination of george dodd -- of a judge sonia sotomayor, on c-span 3, fed chairman ben bernanke testifies before the house financial-services committed. >> how is c-span funded? >> donations? >> sponsorships or something like that? >> taxpayers? >> for philanthropy? >> fundraising? >> the government, maybe? >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. no government mandate, no government money.
2:28 am
>> defense secretary robert gates said today that the army would temporarily at 20,000 more soldiers. his comments made -- came at a half-hour news conference. >> on the recommendation of secretary of the army, and general george casey, and with it -- with president obama's strong support, i am announcing a decision to temporarily increase the active-duty strength of the army by up to 22,000.
2:29 am
i came into this job in 2006 with the belief that we did not have enough forces to properly support the extended pace of combat operations in iraq, afghanistan and around the world. shortly after taking office, and mindful of the decision to surge forces into iraq, i recommended and congress approved a permanent increase in the army of 65,000 and marine corps of 27,000. at that time, it was judged that these increases would sustain the projected level of deployments and lower the stress on the force. i suggested that the army continued to reduce the size of the institutional force. much has changed over the past two years, causing us to readdress whether we are site
2:30 am
-- sized to support the needs. progress -- it's significantly draws down forces by next year and completed by the end of 2011. the escalating violence in afghanistan and the turmoil in afghanistan has an associated increase in american forces in afghanistan. the persistent base of operations in iraq and afghanistan over the last several years has steadily increase the number of troops not available for deployment in the army. the decision to eliminate the routine use of stop-loss authority in the army also requires a larger personnel group for each to pouring unit for -- to compensate for those whose contract expires during a period of employment -- deployment. the army has had diminishing
2:31 am
returns in its multi-year program to reduce the size of its training and support tail. the cumulative effect of these factors is that the army faces a time frame or its ability to continue to deploy combat units acceptable fill rates is at risk. this will abate over the course of the next three years. for these reasons, i have authorized the army to increase its personnel strength by 22,000 troops for three fiscal years. these additional forces will insure that our units are properly manned and not to create new combat formations. the department will not seek additional funds for 2009 or 2010 to implement this decision. i am mindful that during this
2:32 am
period of financial crisis, there will be additional tough choices for the department. calling to mind my comments in the past about things that we don't need creating problems for us in the areas we do need. however, i am convinced that this is an important, necessary step to insure that we continue to properly support the needs of our commanders in the field by providing relief for our current force and their families. >> i would just add that i fully support this increase. i have grown increasingly concerned over the last year- and-a-half about stress on the force and our ability to meet the demands out there. this temporary increase helps us address that concern. we will -- it will also help us get -- [unintelligible] that is really the larger point, here. it is not just about relief, it is about route renewing our
2:33 am
efforts to fight these two wars. managing stress for troops and families is one answer was meeting the demands for the kind of skills and kind of thinking that we need to complete the mission in iraq while shifting the main effort to afghanistan. as you all know, i just returned from a trip to both places and what i found was that there was a much deeper appreciation of counterinsurgency warfare then i found in the past, especially in afghanistan where our troops had read the tactical directive on civilian casualties and were executing at a high level. a perfect example of that were the marines that i spent a day with and i can tell you that they really do get it. of the reported that one civilian casualty up to that point in their operations and were using and espousing very disciplined and the liberal amounts of care for the afghan people. the soldiers we're looking to
2:34 am
add to our force will no doubt give us some breathing room, but they will also give us room to run in a faster pace war. it is the right thing to do. i told the troops that we're living in a time of not only great change, but also great simons and 80. many things are happening at once in many different places and though we may be tired, we must a focus. this is no time to lower our gaze or pull back our outstretched hands. >> a question for both of you. a couple of weeks of passed since the june 30 handover of control in the cities in iraq. have you assessed level of cooperation and level of tension between u.s. forces and iraqi forces, particularly in baghdad. are you convinced that you have the authority you need to
2:35 am
operate as you need to? >> i received a report from a general that addressed this issue. he said that tillable cooperation and collaboration with the iraqi security forces is going much better than is being portrayed publicly and in the media. so, my impression, from his reporting and not just this week, but over the last couple of weeks, it has been that it is actually, in his view, going quite well. >> all the discussions i have had about this issue have been very positive. there are challenges and i would point out that the independent effort that the iraqi forces provided recently in terms of providing security for the visit
2:36 am
of many iraqis to a very safe mosque, that, as an example, we continue to work with them but from the time before the 30th of june until now, it has been positive. there are challenges, but i think that the leadership is working its way through each one of those challenges. i am encouraged. >> i have an f-22 question. what would you tell a worker -- >> i could not tell file a state or a limited period " to tell a worker in hartford about the jobs. this has been constantly held the chris dodd -- what would you
2:37 am
tell worker face-to-face in a tavern about the impact of your decision if he says that york -- he is more to lose his job. >> i would say what you heard me say before. in the net effect of this will be a substantial increase in the number of jobs in the aerospace industry. the f-22 has 44,000 direct employees this year. 19,000 in 2010 and 13,000 in 2011. the f-22 already has 33,000 employees. that will go to 62,000 -- 64,000 in fiscal year 2010 in -- and more in fiscal year 2011. a net increase in the aerospace industry is tens of thousands of jobs added between the two
2:38 am
aircraft as one ramps down and the other rounds of. >> does it bother you that unnerved -- a number of prominent democrats are saying that we need to buy more? >> what i have not heard is a substantive reason for adding more in terms of our should teach it meets. >> secretary, over the weekend, the taliban released a video of the private that was captured in afghanistan. as the u.s. military or the department been able to get anything from that video and for both of you, what was your personal reaction when you saw this american soldier on display in that matter. >> because the admiral to scott back, let me ask him. i would say by way of
2:39 am
introduction that first of all, our commanders are sparing no effort to find this young soldier. i also would say that my personal reaction is one of disgust at the exploitation of this young man. >> i deplore the exploitation of them and would just reaffirm what the secretary said. having been with the forces that are looking to find him or extensive, vast and they are on a 247 and we are doing it absolutely everything we can to get him back. >> is there anything anyone was able to get from this video? >> from intelligence perspective, we certainly would not share that publicly and i guess i would certainly look at that and study it very hard and
2:40 am
leave it at that. >> what is your message that you're planning on delivering? >> since it is all over their newspapers, there is nothing particularly secret about it. it is a routine visit as far as i am concerned. it has been probably, at least two years since i have visited israel. i have been in regular contact over the last long while with my counterpart, mr. brock. i see is as a very routine visit to touch base with my counterpart and others in the israeli government. are you going to -- but will
2:41 am
come up, will you be reassuring israelis? >> i think the only thing i am prepared to say about that is that i am confident that that subject will come out. >> you spoke about the tactical directive. it you said that troops were showing a lot of discipline. i think you were quoted in the papers as saying that if this was accurate, that we killed to the committee civilians. one is too many. both of you, for so many years, have talked about the motion that the u.s. military takes every precaution and is more careful than any other country out there about civilian casualties. i do not think that squares with the fact that you now have done something else. now you have the technical director. clearly, there was something else that could be done and that
2:42 am
wasn't done until now. yet you have talked so long about being more careful than anybody else. how do you square both of these views? >> ever civilian casualties is a tragic loss in and of itself. in fact, the secretary, myself and commanders earlier this year to " we believe was a significant step in that direction. yet, we continue to have incidents. what struck me on this trip was how quickly and how deeply this message from the general had penetrated both on the aircraft carrier when we talked to the air wing that was having a much
2:43 am
more comprehensive discussion about the target set, if you will and other choices before you had to release a weapon to the marines that have conducted this operation most recently and had a single casualty, i just found it much more affected. it is a learning process. i do not think -- we have killed too many civilians and that has been since we have been in the fight. that is what brought us to this point. if i thought that taking additional steps six months ago , if i had thought of those, i certainly wouldñ=u have done th. that is part of what we have gone through. but i was taken with that directive had been grasped by everybody. >> if you, for so many years,
2:44 am
yourself and your predecessors have said that the u.s. does everything it can. you have said this for many years now. yet, clearly, there were other steps to take. are you satisfied that it has taken eight years to figure out these other steps? >> i am only going to speak to the last two and half. my view is that it has been a the evolutionary process. i think that all the things that i have said and that the admiral has said about the u.s. taking more care with respect to civilian casualties and anybody else is absolutely true. i think that when i was in afghanistan over a year ago, i took after impressed with me to an area where they received a briefing along with me about the
2:45 am
measures ever taken by our pilots to check and double checked and triple checked and to try and avoid civilian casualties when they were attacking a target. what think we have seen is, first of all, i took the approach early last year that we should change your approach when there are civilian casualties in terms of how we react because we were reacting too slowly. and in the general took steps to try and tighten up how we went at operations with respect to avoiding civilian casualties. i think that the general has taken it to yet another level. but also, from a strategic standpoint, i think that our
2:46 am
concern all along has been that we not place our own troops in increased jeopardy. the question has been, how we design our offensive operations in a way that will reduce the possibility of civilian casualties and i think that is what the general has undertaken. i stand by the fact that nobody cares more and worries more to avoid civilian casualties. i am confident that it has been an evolutionary policy and i think it has reached a completely different level under the general. it really tees off of his testimony during his confirmation hearing that the measure of success is not the number of taliban killed but the member of afghans protected. >> senator chill brand is
2:47 am
talking about adding an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would give an 18 month moratorium on don't ask don't tell. earlier this year, it was said that there were looking for ways to been the law. >> for one thing, we have a new president that has a different policy. we will support what his goal is. i am not going to speak to specific legislation. even as we look for ways to apply the law more humanely, and as will look at how we might begin to implement the law, carol and the only thing we have
2:48 am
continued to say is that if chalonda does change, it is important that the implementation be deliberate and careful. i think that we have a force under great stress. to try to do something abruptly, i think it would be of real concern. >> other steps to apply the law more humanely? >> we're still looking at that. >> we're waiting to see what his 60 days review produces.
2:49 am
it is fine with me if he takes the full 60 days to examine it. i have asked and to scrub very hard. to insure their we're using them to the mass of -- to the maximum effectiveness. i do not think an answer either way is inevitable. >> [unintelligible] >> for one thing, we have another brigade coming in later this summer. their personal responsibility is going to be for training. this is one to be devoted for trading. >> i would add that almost every major unit that is coming in
2:50 am
will have a training responsibility in addition to other responsibilities. there is a heavy responsibility but police. additionally, there are forces coming in. >> below were level american commanders of said they have been asked to provide information. rhetorically, there were comments that i was struck by. they said they are getting impatient because they are under house arrest. how confident are you that the safety of the american troops is being protected? >> also, if the iraqis see our
2:51 am
presence there as putting them under house arrest, while we there? >> first of all, i certainly have not heard anything from the general that would indicate that our soldiers have been put at an increased risk. it is a measure of our success in iraq that politics have come. having spent the better part of the day, >> his interaction security forces as well as the army, he is looking at the interface between [unintelligible]
2:52 am
and the iraqi army as well. the idea that he would handcuff ford do what he is doing, it was something that never came up. >> from your afghanistan visit, what is your thought? are you satisfied about the new rules of protecting civilians? >> i discussed the civilian casualty issue broadly with seniors and juniors alike. the issue of not being able to protect themselves never came up. what i found was an enthusiasm for that. i'll give a quick example of marines. some time ago, they would be
2:53 am
waiting and waiting and ensure all women and children were out. not too long after that, -- a woman came out with her figure shot off. the marines went to her and there were about 12 other individuals dressed and burke aahs. there were masquerading as women. in the end, what the locals said was that they were cowards, how dare they hide behind women. what that said to me was that people are thinking three and four steps now and the message
2:54 am
is that the locals turned against the taliban, which, in long run is the right answer. i found other examples of that while i was there. that has really sunk in. >> the first part was a little taliban resistance. if i could, he only has 15,000 trips. >> that is how the forces have been distributed. i am assured that general microscope is " to make that part of his assessment. we will see what the distribution is and whether or not it changes as a result of that. two aspects of the taliban, they are just not standing and fighting, but they are dispersing. i have talked to a couple of rangers who were in some pretty
2:55 am
tough fights that were surprised that the taliban were as sophisticated as they were. >> if i could ask you about the new approach, is part of the search effort -- some leaflets were put out. it does that send a conflicting message? what is your opinion? >> i would reiterate that there's a tremendous effort on going to return this individual to us. it is full spectrum. clearly, the enemy is able to use this in their own information way. i do not think that information
2:56 am
is meant to be threatening to as much as of this to express the concern and we will go to ever end to find this individual. >> that is the kind of thing that i leave to the judgment of the commanders in the field. i am not going to try and second-guess those kinds of things from here there is a balance to try to recover our soldier and get him back. the commanders in the field are a lot better at doing that. >> back to the announcement that she made earlier. could he speak more to that? what all those choices? what is the cost? >> it goes to the line i have
2:57 am
been using all spring. this is a zero sum budget. if money, for one thing, there has to be an offset the cost, we expect for the rest of 2009, it is probably on the order of less than $100 million. i have told the president and the hill that we need their support for programs, but we would absorb those costs. we would do that within our current top line and then work with them. we will take that money from someplace that we think is not as high priority as more
2:58 am
soldiers take additional steps to reduce the stress on the force. this is a very high priority. this is why some of the wheeling and dealing on the heels of a few hundred million here and a few hundred million there confront us with ever more difficult choices when we are trying to make trade-offs with how to help our soldiers out. how we relieve the stress on the force? it has to come from somewhere. this is the point that i have been trying to make all along. >> i wondered if you would talk about the ramifications of the f-22 vote. if you prevail, this is mean it will be easier? if you lose, what they don't. >> personally, i think it is important to remember that the vote this evening is important,
2:59 am
but the reality is that the president has been quite clear that if there is money for the f-22, he will veto it. that is pretty clear. i would say that while there are several areas where we have a disagreement with some on the hill. i made about 50 program decisions and i announced the main ones on april 6. the reality is congress has embraced most of those that is in respect to taking care of people and taking care of the force. so, i think that there is -- there are several high-profile programs, there are a source of contention. the reality is that much of what we're trying to do is reflected in the markups that have been
3:00 am
passed so far and i think it is being internalized inside this building as i watch the qdr go forward. . .
3:01 am
3:02 am
3:03 am
3:04 am
3:05 am
3:06 am
3:07 am
3:08 am
3:09 am
3:10 am
3:11 am
3:12 am
3:13 am
3:14 am
3:15 am
3:16 am
3:17 am
3:18 am
3:19 am
3:20 am
3:21 am
3:22 am
3:23 am
3:24 am
3:25 am
3:26 am
3:27 am
3:28 am
3:29 am
3:30 am
3:31 am
3:32 am
3:33 am
3:34 am
3:35 am
3:36 am
3:37 am
3:38 am
3:39 am
3:40 am
3:41 am
3:42 am
3:43 am
3:44 am
3:45 am
3:46 am
3:47 am
3:48 am
3:49 am
3:50 am
3:51 am
3:52 am
3:53 am
3:54 am
3:55 am
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am
4:00 am
4:01 am
4:02 am
4:03 am
4:04 am
4:05 am
4:06 am
4:07 am
4:08 am
4:09 am
4:10 am
4:11 am
4:12 am
4:13 am
4:14 am
4:15 am
4:16 am
4:17 am
4:18 am
4:19 am
4:20 am
4:21 am
4:22 am
4:23 am
4:24 am
4:25 am
4:26 am
4:27 am
4:28 am
4:29 am
4:30 am
4:31 am
4:32 am
4:33 am
4:34 am
4:35 am
4:36 am
4:37 am
4:38 am
4:39 am
4:40 am
4:41 am
4:42 am
4:43 am
4:44 am
4:45 am
4:46 am
4:47 am
4:48 am
4:49 am
4:50 am
4:51 am
4:52 am
4:53 am
4:54 am
4:55 am
4:56 am
4:57 am
4:58 am
4:59 am
there was only one moment when i had a scary incident, and it was doing something i shouldn't have been doing. so kids, here it is. you always get in trouble when you do something that you're not supposed to be doing or you had practice for it. so we would set the high jump record on the moon, and my backpack weighed 155 pounds is what i weighed back then and when i jumped up i straightened
5:00 am
up when my center of gravity went backward and i went like @@nt backward and i went like that ended the moon olympics. >> for now. >> for now. >> it was all very upsetting, by the way. they thought they lost somebody. >> certainly did not try to break the record. >> well, the rover was -- i was really the navigator. and riding with john, you hear one of the old race drivers, it here comes bernie again. he was flat out on the moon. the speed record on the moon was 11 miles per hour, and we were bouncing like this. i was glad i had my seat belt
5:01 am
on. the rover only weighed 80 pounds on the moon, so the spring in this would hit the bombs and the rocks and in the gullies and the small craters, and we would just bounce all of the place -- would hit the bumps and the rocks and the gullies. >> if you want to ask a question, we have to ask you to go to that microphone right over there. and there was a question from and eagle moderator. it is a tossup. it is for all of you. -- and the google moderator. toss-up. it's for all of you, so let's start with you, john. how far do you think the united states should go with space exploration? do you set limits, i gather s what the question is? >> i think there are always limits that you have to set in terms of funding. what can you afford, but i would say and of course, i've
5:02 am
dedicated my life to it that it's the most important thing we do. exploration is the most important thing we do. it brings all of the new innovations and technology that make our lives worthwhile, that's what i believe. >> let's take it on down. laura? >> i think great things happen when we set impossible, audacious goals, and i think that basic exploration is the thing that allows us to do that. to dream beyond what's possible so we shouldn't think about it in terms of limits. we should think about it in terms of striving for that next incredible thing that we can't even imagine that we can do, but we go after. >> one famous phrase, we don't do it because it's easy. we do it because it's hard. >> that's right. >> that's true, and i think the human spirit is the spirit of exploration. that's why i volunteered because i wanted to be an explorer of the first order, and i think in the future, that spirit is still
5:03 am
here with us and will lead us on to more knowledge of the moon and then on to mars. eventually we'll get there. i don't know in my life time, but i would encourage everybody that are studying now, the kids to do their best and to look out into the future. the weak line will allow you to see farther on with a new technology that we would not imagine. i think i hear the voice of the next astronaut. we have some questioners standing by right now, ready. it was more nerve-racking for you wondering whether or not they would be able to successfully land and then come back and was it more nerve-racking to actually be the one there that was landing and then coming back. probably the -- sitting in
5:04 am
mission control and back up and just monitoring. it's more nerve-racking to listen to it, and that are not in the dean ammic situation. you were focused on the operational side of it. you don't really have time to worry about oh, my lord, what am i going to do if this thing got worked? you wouldn't be there if that were your situation, but listening and watching in mission control is you get anxious. you want them to succeed so much that you get anxious about it. >> will say, i can just add i was in mission control when they were trying to turn that bolt on the hubble mission. i will tell you, people think scientists we wear lab coats and not otional. people were crying because they had devoted ten years of their life to building this camera
5:05 am
that might not get in if this bolt broke. it's nerve-racking. we all wanted to turn that wrench for you. >> my name is a.r. hogan. i'm a science journalist and i'm doing a doctoral dissertation of the space program and i wanted to ask your reaction to what impact the amazing coverage on television of the apollo lunar explorations, some of it at cbs news, of course, produced by robert and anchored so wonderfully and ably by walter cronkite. i can't bring myself to say the late walter cronkite that we so tragically lost him last friday, but can you talk about the impact of this television coverage on the public and also, those of us who like walter cronkite and most people in this room who are space enthusiasts, how can we manage to get those who are inexplicably not, how can we get them to get it why this is compellingly important for our human species to do, please?
5:06 am
>> john, why don't you start that one? >> i'll just start to lead off because charlie talked about inspiring and there's absolutely no question that charlie and john young were my heroes as a kid. i did tell my mom i wanted to go walk on the moon and while i have walked on the moon, going up the hubble three times as an astronomer has been my holy grail in space and there's no question that that inspired me, and i grew up in those 1960s when the two major events in my life were the space program and televisions appearing in american homes. so i think it was that sur end initious conjunction and it might be with these very exciting explorers go off and do something great upon. that set me off on a lifetime of discovery. >> so the coverage was intrinsic to your interest? >> yeah. >> was that also true -- when impact do you think that all of that coverage including obviously -- >> the coverage is very, very
5:07 am
important and the early -- earlier flights, every minute and every second was covered on tv. by the time we flew, hardly any of it was on tv so that my family, my parents and my wife and kids went to mission control and sat in a visitor's viewing room so they could watch us on the moon. and to me that's okay. it's an evolution of knowledge and experience that we get that sort of fades away in the public knowledge, but doesn't take away from the importance of what we were doing. you know, lindberg flew the atlantic. everybody remembers that, nobody can say number two, who flew. the first 747. we have 747s back over the news. and anyway, it's that -- what we
5:08 am
do doesn't distract and from what we accomplished. >> i didn't say that right. i know exactly what you mean and i wanted to ask you this question. doesn't the celebrity of those early astronauts, did that not help to gurd the congress and all of the rest of us for the very difficult and expensive task that lay ahead? >> it did, and that's why i spend a lot of my time now going around and speaking to groups to try to encourage them, to try to rekindle that adventure because the future is the future and we need to get excited about it, and invest some of our resources to make that capital investment into the future for the return. >> another question? >> i'm rita carl, director of education for space science education, and we fly to the moon all of the time.
5:09 am
we have a student from our challenger learning center in richmond, virginia. >> hi, i'm nadia higgins and my question is what are some things that we have learned from space exploration that we can use to help our own planet? >> laura? >> oh, great question. most people don't know this, but right now nasa has 15 spacecraft orbiting the earth watching the pulse of our planet as it's changing and studying the basic physics that drive our planet and our weather to help us predict better how it will be changing in the future and also we send to other planets, venus and mars to help us understand how planets like ours can change and evolve. from a science perspective, we've learned a whole bunch about the history of our planet and how it can change in the future and the technology change from nasa, and i don't know if either either of you want to talk about the spin-offs like from the hubble imaging, for example. the hubble space telescope helped pioneer the ccbs and
5:10 am
cameras. how many people out here have a digital camera? there's a bit of hubble space telescope technology in every single one of those cameras that's revolutionized the media and the news because they're ubiquitous. they're everywhere so people can take pictures of news as it happens and send it in. the technology that's used to make those detectors, the semiconductor technology and some of the techniques on how to build instruments from hubble and the imaging have gone into the manufacturing of those semiconductors and of course, we're all concerned about health care and our own health and some of the techniques that astronomers can use as planets and star forming regions and they're the technology to identify those spots have also been used in medical imaging to help detect cancer in the human body. so it's really a wide range of things from the heart attacks to the attacks that hubble alone
5:11 am
among the many missions that nasa does that have helped us. >> thank you for that. yes, sir? >> it would be easier or harder to find astronauts after the incident in apollo 13? >> for them to -- come forward you mean? >> yeah. would they want to be astrona astronauts? >> were there just as many volunteers after apollo 13 as fore? >> as far as who wanted to go? you bet. we were betting the door down. i'm ready to go. that's just the nature of an explorer. >> he's apollo 16. >> he did go after. >> i did go after. we fixed that problem and we didn't think it would happen again. the challenger explosion. there was the crew that followed on after that after columbia and that's the nature of spaceflight and the risk that we take and there's not an astronaut there
5:12 am
that doesn't understand that risk and is willing to take that risk for the next adventure. these are great questions. yes, sir? >> how far are we from achieving earth gravity in space? >> is earth gravity in space vehicle a prerequisite for traveling to mars? what are we talking about? anybody up for that? >> when we're in space we're weightless because we're in constanty fromfall as you orbit the earth and on your way to the moon. as you orbit the moon you have one-sixth the same pull that we feel on earth. the gait advantage of that is just a joy to float in space. it's truly magical and it just changes the whole experience of being human. that's the good news, the bad news is one of the reasons that we stayed healthy is because we get up in the morning and we go out and we exercise and we walk around and that makes our muscles and our cardiovascular system strong. in weightlessness, our bones,
5:13 am
our muscles and our heart don't get enough exercise. our bones get weak and our muscles get weak. so one approach to these along flights to mars, these six-month cruises to mars would be to build some kind of a circular spacecraft that rotates, for instance, so the acceleration you feel is the same or some fraction of what you feel on earth. that's one approach and that's an engineering problem and that's something we could solve. another approach would be to find ways and machinery, essentially gym equipment that allows you to get move exercise working against elastic cords to get enough exercise. just to keep saying over six months, most astronauts like to be gym rats. >> that's what i do to get paid to go to the gym every day and i like that. that's one approach and that's the one we're using on the international space station. one of the goals of the international space station is to learn how to keep our bodies healthy over the long cruises,
5:14 am
but artificial gravity, so to speak, is one other approach. >> i just heard, if i understood correctly what the person said speaking into my ear. this program will be repeated on nasa tv immediately after this broadcast is over, and also, i think, at all of the science centers which are hooked up with us as well. i think that's what they said. we've got another question? >> my name is matthew. one day i hope to be an astronaut. my question is for you, john, what was your reaction when you were the last person to grab on to hubble for the final time? >> good question. >> the last moment i grabbed on to hubble scott probably wanted to come out and pry my hands off it. no, seriously, we made hubble brand new. this was a complete hubble makeover. we put in the wide field camera with a new detector that would jus, a@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @r
5:15 am
it allows us to the physics and the astrophysics about the structure of the universe. light and dark matter. we brought two cameras back to life, and we put them in hubbell, so it is really a brand-new telescope. i felt so good about that that i sort of said to myself, "you are the man." [laughter] you know, and, "good luck on the voyages." there was really incredible satisfaction that we had achieved all of those challenges and that we were sending hubble off on what was a brand-new adventure. >> well said. [applause] >> i have a question. is it possible to have absolute zero in space? >> no, it is not, and it turns
5:16 am
out that that is a really deep question. it is one that involves physics that is totally outside of our own experience. it really gets down to the question of what is space, time, and matter, and although we do not have a great understanding of that, the real answer is that you never can really achieve a steady state of absolute zero. understanding of that. the real answer is that you can't achieve a steady state of absolute zero. >> it is still darn cold out there. >> my question is for john. john, you never spoke about what that second tool was to get the bolt off -- to get the camera out. could it have been wd-40 by any chance? >> well, you know, i was thinking about that while we were out there because those bolts are lubricated to prevent them from getting stuck like that. the number one rule i always teach other space walkers that i'm leading on these hubble
5:17 am
flights. i've been up there three times and i learned from the master steve smith what was the third mission, number one rule, don't break the hubble. so when we put a wrench on a bolt we have a device that has springs in it that prevents us from overtorquing it. so the wrench slips instead of break the hubble. so we had the wrench in there and in this case, drew was cranking on it and suddenly that thing slipped. we can increase the torque in steps and we did that all of the way to the end of what we could do and it happens to be 45 foot pounds or so. so what we had to do in the end and we tried sockets and wrenches and we had to take that out of the loop. we just pulled that out and put the wrench straight on the bolt. that means if you pull too hard the bolted will snap too hard and that's the end. we can't get the instrument out. so we had to go to that extreme and unfortunately it broke loose
5:18 am
or came loose just above where the torque was operating so we just got looky. later on, i had a similar one that had been installed with the same tool and when i went to do it the same thing happened. at this time we knew what the procedures would be to get it unstuck. it's still that moment -- is it going to break? >> the line is first do no harm. >> that's right. >> i have one more philosophical question. i think everyone here values space exploration and the value of that, we all understand or we wouldn't be here, but can you talk about in an era of tight budgets, the value of manned space versus more robotic and unmanned space exploration? >> we had part of that debate up here earlier, didn't we? when buzz was still here. i don't think you ever got to address it. >> let me give you a couple of quick comments about it.
5:19 am
i think it is a false debate about it. the truth is there's room and need for both. robots can go right now places where humans can't and humans can do things that robots can't at the moment and much more efficiently. if my friend steve squires is the lead scientist for the mars rover for an opportunity that is still five years later and the energizer bunny is on mars and keeps going and going. i've actually asked him this question. if you were a geologist which he is and i am on the surface of mars, how long would it take you to do what the rover does in a day and what the rover does every day is drive 50 meters and it looks into a rock and it figures out what kind of rock it is. that's basically what a geologist does. how long does it take for a human to do that? he said i've timed it, 45 seconds. so you can imagine that there's a heck of a lot of efficiency that you get out of having humans there, in addition, human eyes and hands and ears can give
5:20 am
us the observations that, frankly, we don't yet have the capability to get with robots. there's an incredible amount that robotic exploration does and most of the missions that we do is robotic exploration and it is amazing, but i think there is room for humans in that loop as well. >> thank you very much. i just want to let you know that we have time for, i think, a couple of more questions and you're one of them. >> hi, my name is erika. my little brother hopes to be an astro facisist when he grows up. when you all were little did you ever dream of doing what you're doing now? >> well, i couldn't even pronounce astrophysicist when i was a kid, and i didn't, but i wanted to follow in the footsteps of my here rows which i said earlier, those that served in the military in world war ii. so i decided as a junior in high school, a sophomore in high school that i wanted to go.
5:21 am
i made it there and i fell in love with airplanes and so i became a pilot. so it was just a progression of one sort of step after another, if you will, that leads us to your final careers and so i just tell everybody to dream, whether you will be a physicist, an engineer or scientist of some sort or a medical doctor. all of those are needed in the space program and if you desire to be an astronaut or involved in space, you can be just about anything you want to be. >> we have lawyers and business people, too, at nasa center. >> one more question. >> hello. my mother has called me barney oldfield, but i am looking at all of the arguments for continuing space exploration and
5:22 am
we are getting to the end of the shuttle program, and of course, budget is one of the big mantras. what do we see in the international community in support either with technology or continuing support with the intellectual science fields. >> and money as well. >> let me start and laura, join in. when we join on endevour's great exploration that that is a unifying theme amongst peoples on planet earth and it's been shown time and time again. budgets are this grand adventure that is such an integral part of us being human that we have to do it. great nations or nations of great explorers. there's no question, if you look
5:23 am
at the amount of spacecraft that are around the moon. we had chinese spacecraft exmoring the moon, an indian spacecraft, american spacecraft, each of these spacecraft there's international participation and cooperation. so if there's no question in my mind that if we don't lead exploratie exploration in this country, someone will and i like that we're the leaders. >> almost every one is international these days and you can harken back to the soyuz back when the u.s. and russians weren't getting along very well we were exploring together in space and we can betrayal blazers to nations building bridges through space exploration with science, with human spaceflight and we are doing that today almost every mission we fly as international and that's something we're very proud of at nasa. >> amen.
5:24 am
i love that. one name was mentioned here earlier and late in life walter cronkite and i became very good friends and saw one another regularly. one of the things i remember most was a conversation i had with him at a restaurant in new york when he was talking about you and he was talking about space and he always called it the biggest story that he ever covered, the most important story of these two centuries. he also put it in a way that i hadn't heard before. he said, you know, all of the news i was doing, was there watergate and vietnam, we were downcast. we as a nation and maybe the world was downcast. he said i'm not sure there's a word that i'm going to use, but space -- space travel, the space programs are upcast. he said you had us, you had us looking up, beyond ourselves, our reach exceeding our grasp and that's what we thank all of
5:25 am
you for, and thank you for being [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on the 40th anniversary of the moon landing on monday, president obama met with the apollo astronauts. from the white house, this is about five minutes. >> all right, you guys all set up? very rarely do i have such an
5:26 am
extraordinary pleasure as i have today, to welcome three iconic figures, three genuine american heroes, to have neil armstrong, michael collins, and buzz aldrin here. it is just wonderful. i think that all of us recall the moment at which mankind was finally untethered from this planet and was able to explore the stars, the moment at which we had one of our own step on the moon and leave that imprint that is there to this day, and it is because of the heroism, the calm under pressure, the
5:27 am
grace with which these three gentlemen operative, but also the entire nasa family that was at great risk oftentimes with a great danger was somehow able to lift our sites, not just here in the united states but around the world. we now have a wonderful nasa administrator. there is the deputy minister later. i think it is fair to say that the touchdown of excellence for exploration and discovery is always going to be represented by the men of apollo 11, so i am
5:28 am
grateful to them for taking the time to visit with us. the country continues to draw inspiration for what they have done. i grew up in hawaii, as many of you know, and i still remember sitting on my grandfather shoulders. we were waving at the folks coming home. i remember my grandfather telling maine that the apollo mission was an example of how americans can do anything they put their minds to. i also know that as a consequence of the extraordinary work of nasa, you have inspired an entire generation of scientists and engineers that ended up really sparking the nation's with their creativity
5:29 am
back here on earth. and i think it is important to constantly remember that nasa was not only about feeding our curiosity but about that sense of wonder. also, it had extraordinary practical applications, and one of the things i was committed to doing as president is making sure that mathematics and science arcola again. they have the highest college graduation rates for anywhere on earth, especially in the mathematics and science fields -- to make sure that mathematics and science are cool again. all of us are thankful and grateful to all of you for what you have done, and we expect that as we speak, there is another generation of kids out there who are looking up at the sky, and there will be the next
5:30 am
armstrong, collins, and aldrin, and we went to make sure that nasa is there for them when they want to take their dream. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you very much. thank you so much. all right, thank you, everybody. . >> a couple of live events. the senate judiciary committee will meet to talk about the
5:31 am
nomination of sonia sotomayor. also at 10:00 on c-span3, ben bernanke will testify before the house financial services committee. >> house c-span funded? >> donations? >> there is some kind of sponsorship. >> this is the root philanthropy. >> the government? >> house c-span funded? 30 years ago, the cable companies created c-span has a public service. no government mandate, no government money. >> the nation's governors ended at their annual meeting with a forum on the energy and the economy. they met with business leaders to talk about climate change. we begin with the president and
5:32 am
the ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce institute for 21st century energy. this is one hour and a half. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> great. >> you all know better than idea that the provision of affordable energy is so fundamental to the economy and our economic recovery, and also to the national security. the choices that have been made, by the congress in the coming years will be with us for many decades. this needs to be based in facts. where are we? there was a poll in january about what was on the minds of american citizens. energy was no. 6 behind the
5:33 am
economy. global warming came out as no. 20 on a list of 20. that is the american mind set. when there was an opinion poll on climate change, there was an interesting new statistic. there is a growing population out there that is skeptical of what they are being presented in the media. 41% of the american people are skeptical about what is being presented. when they were asked whether they would be willing to pay more money to address climate change, there is a huge change from where we were in the 1990's, where double of the people were able to do this, and now we are basically split on whether we should or should not pay more to address the challenges associated with climate change. associated with climate change. what is happening in the world? between now and 2013, the demand for energy will go up 50%, 70%
5:34 am
of that will be in the developing world, china has thirty million cars on the road, they will have three hundred million cars on the road by 2030, we still have a billion and a half people without electricity but the demand for electricity around the world is going to go up by 100%. here in the united states we know that our demand for energy will go by as much as 30% and we no electricity demand is going to go up by 20%. what are we doing about it? hole, which provides 50% of our electricity, many governors are blessed with that natural resource, if we have climate change legislation passed through the senate, those in the coal business will face new penalties. nuclear, which provides 20% of our electricity, we have 20 utilities which have put forward applications to the nuclear relative a story commission to
5:35 am
build 26 new reactors in our country. we have not built a new one in 30 years. funding for to reduce capital cost of these nuclear plants, to underwrite them was excluded from the stimulus, expanding guarantee authority has been eliminated from the 2010 budget. we have defunded yucca, no longer have the proposition of a permanent repository for our nuclear waste and the administration announced we will no longer pursue near-term reprocessing of nuclear waste and the utilities are still paying every year into a nuclear waste fund and yet the government is in breach of its obligation to remove that nuclear waste. on the transportation side, we are 96% dependent on oil for our transportation, but we are not doing anything to access the tremendous reserves we have in the united states. we have placed 85% of our reserves off-limits for 30 years. the north korea have expired and we have not put any of those new
5:36 am
leases out for elise, and we're pulling back on the leases that are available and allowable for lease. in addition, in the budget that has been considered in congress, there are $80 billion of new taxes on oil and gas companies. we are extracting -- restricting access and taxing as companies on their existing operations and we are blessed with great news of new natural gas around our country but we will make it very difficult to get to and that is a game changer. we have more natural gas, more energy security and it is a cleaner-burning fuel. to show you quarter by quarter, second quarter of last year verses second quarter of this year, you're seeing a reduction in the number of oil wells and gas well completionss in our country. it will not happen in five years or ten years, we're talking about decisions made today that are impacting us today. on the other side of the ledger let's talk about renewable. solar and wind account for 1.3% of our electricity, we are
5:37 am
investing tremendous resources, production tax credits, manufacturing credits, mandating the expansion of this, it is all good and we should be doing that but even if we quintuple the amount of solar and wind in our electricity supply we would need more based load power. we can't forget we need to keep our economy coming. on the efficiency side of things, there's great opportunity. we can do more with less energy and we are investing a tremendous amount of money and making our passenger fleet more efficient. with renewables and efficiency it is not sufficient, we need more energy supply. the problem is we have a new saying, if you remember nothing about what i said today, remember banana. we no longer have that in my backyard, we have a play on our economy, banana never built anything near anyone. the reason is we no longer have red tape, we have green take. we have projects all across our country that are bottled up with
5:38 am
mitigation, abuse of permitting environmental regulation at the state and federal level, this is what it looks like. over the past two years we looked at 300 energy projects for siding and licensing and all of these have been stalled or stopped by litigation, using environmental regulations. it is not just in natural gas comedies are renewable projects as well. we are taking viable options on all forms of energy off the table. we were talking before this session, even making the building of a solar panel and solar arrays in the mojave desert not doable according to senator boxer. we have a real problem. we need more energy, more infrastructure, they create jobs in your communities, but we are letting them be held up. a couple words on climate change. the epa has a full plate with the proposition of an endangerment finding, we know the waxman barky bill which
5:39 am
passed 119-212, 22 delegations had a majority voting for the bill. you can do the math on how many delegations did not a majority in an. that complicates the senate debate tremendously. we know that debate will happen under senator boxer in september and the president just returned from the g-8 where the g-8 committed to to develop world reducing emissions 80% by 2015, similar to what the waxman-markey was. but the developing world walk away from those negotiations and did not agree to any commitments. where are we? the u.s. units 8 big it tons of carbon dioxide year. that is a lot but there is a sliver of good news, we are submitting less than we did in 2007. who is doing better than us? one country only, france, they
5:40 am
have 80%--the developing world has a tremendous growth in greenhouse gas emissions. 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions come from those economies, not from ours, led by china and india. as we look forward to copenhagen and beyond it is imperative that the developing world the part of the discussion and admit anything we do there will be no impact on the environment and adversely impact our competitiveness. a graphic depiction of waxman-markey. it is very complicated. it shows waxman-markey proposes 397 new regulations and over
5:41 am
1,000 new mandates. it is complex by any stretch of the imagination, it is a bill that is 1500 pages long and has multiple components but the most interesting part is the provision that came in at 3:00 in the morning on the day before the bill was supposed to be voted on which is an unemployment assistance program. it says for any employee in the fossil fuel industry who loses his or her job because of the promulgation of this lot is eligible for 156 weeks of unemployment assistance at 70% of your salary. it is an admission there will be job losses with this bill. there are big differences in analysis of this bill. the chamber of commerce says 2.7 million people will lose their jobs and because of this. other analysis is the impact will be smaller. the bottom line is it is so complex we don't know. we need better analysis and we need more transparent discussion. what we do know is if it is successful, there will not be a test on this, i put it up to
5:42 am
call your attention, if it is successful, we have to remove a gigaton by 2020. it is the equivalent of, instead of building nuclear power plants, replacing them with 130 new nuclear plants. we haven't built one in 30 years. 1 27,500 in the bills. do we have the policy and regulatory environment in place to do that? do we have a manufacturing base to do that? do we have the credit and capital ability to do that? if we do it, if we are successful this is what will happen to our economy. we will have the co2 emissions intensity of what bangladesh has today. that is the red line.
5:43 am
i am not doing this to fear monger, we need to do something. this is to put to rally on the table that the transformation we're talking about is a huge and we need to approach it very seriously with the appropriate amount of policy and regulatory and capital incentive to make this type of change feasible. what do we need? we need more realism. we can't take our solutions for the future. i would like to say we have silver buckshot. we need oil and gas and we need to produce more at home. certainly increases our energy security. we need nuclear, we need clean coal, alternative transportation fuels that don't compete with food over the long term. we need renewables. we absolutely need renewables. we need a sustainable policy to insert themselves into our energy midst. you know we need to modernize our infrastructure, seeing it
5:44 am
every day, we have a twentieth century infrastructure trying to support a twenty-first century economy. it doesn't work. china is leapfrogging over us in their infrastructure quality. we need to get serious about overcoming that and we need to get beyond, planet earth, banana, if we don't get something built, we will never have that infrastructure. we need to streamline a permanent process to get these jobs and get this economy moving. last but not least, we need to invest in our innovation, intellectual infrastructure. at the end of the day, innovation will carry this economy and if we don't remain competitiveness, we won't be competitive in any others. there are serious cloud on the horizon, more american jobs, not fewer, and a growing gap in public and policymakers, policy going one direction and the american public going another. 70% one more oil and gas, current administration policy, congressional action is taking
5:45 am
those options off the table. we needed transparent discussion, it is going to cost something, but we need to bring we want the capital invested here, not just in beijing and more by -- mumbai. we have to make certain that the investments have been here. i want to remind you as the government leaders, we have to be very serious about the role of the private sector against the public sector. it is against the back of the private sector that we have become so successful, this will drive the economic recovery. as we determine the lineations, we have to be very careful that we do not take away the incentives for their activity. energy, -- this begins and ends with energy.
5:46 am
without affordable energy we will not have a successful recovery. thank you. >> i want to thank her for a wonderful presentation. presentation. we have time for one or two questions. >> just on the oil sulfide, i have to stay with the largest reserve of oil shell, it is unfair to characterize the federal government as backing off a quest for commercial leasing that permits, actually the private sector that says they don't know the impact of the technology that they're try and demonstrate. they don't know the impact of ground water so they backed off of their commercial lease. the secretary of the interior, i know him pretty well, he supports oil shale development and the research and development programs but at this time it is just not fair to say the federal government has backed off. what we are asking them to do is what they're doing.
5:47 am
we are asking them to make sure the technology is proven out, what the impact is on water quality, technology, the amount of water consumed because there is a scarcity on the river basin, the amount of energy that is consumed to do the technology, stick a heating element in the ground and convert shale to liquified oil and extractor a conventional process. we have asked them to go slow because we have done this stands in nearly 80s when we built up an entire community and an entire commerce around oil shale development and it went away in a day when the price of oil changed. for our purposes, we are not about trying to prevent oil shale development. i can speak for the folks -- we had discussions about this, we went to promote and go forward, we don't want it to go bust in the day because communities can
5:48 am
be impacted dramatically and we absolutely want to know the impact of wildlife, water, air, and until we do, we don't want them to design the rules for commercialeasing. >> there has been significant investment in research and development. you are right about that. those need to continue over time and there needs to be partitioned between the federal government and private sector in that regard. what the private sector is saying is in order to realize there's going to be a benefit at the end of this significant investment, hundreds of millions of dollars in investment in r&d, there will be a cost the best prospects for greater commercial leasing, the one that sureties so they can commit to that funding stream for increase r&d. it is a partnership that needs to happen, and a promise that will be expanded commercial leasing. they want that long-term view and that is what i think they're looking for. we have had a lot of discussion with secretary salazar. we might see forward movement. oil sale can be a very
5:49 am
significant contributor to our energy security at home. but we need to make sure that there is a signal to the private sector that they will recoup those investments they are willing to make and that is important. those are investment being made, jobs being created that they won't make those if they don't think they will be able to bring those resources into the marketplace. >> time for won more? >> when i see aone more? >> when i see a chart, thank you for coming in mid-what the world is going to look like in 2015 i know they're not right. we saw how much china would be producing in 2015, we don't know. i know that in china they are leading battery technology, solar technology, they are meeting in coal gas technology. they're making some significant steps. if what we are able to is look
5:50 am
at ten year or 15 year progress grid and predict where we are going to be in 2015 i will predict something else. just a few deal logic structures in montana has enough oil at the rate that we have increased technology during the last ten years, the price of oil will be $2 a barrel in 2015. for those of us who say we cannot move on climate change because china and india will not and are not, america needs, and either we will be or we need to getleads, and either we will be or we need to g we cannot say china is leading and just get out of the way. >> the negotiations under which we are trying to participate use that as the end game, where do we need to be in 2015, people
5:51 am
are trying to see beyond where they can. we don't know what technology will be available in 2015, you are absolutely right but we are trying to divide targets based on existing knowledge. that is very tricky. if we were more realistic and design something much more near-term we would be better off because we know what the schools are, what the instrumentation is that we have today. prior to the stimulus package we were investing less in research and development in energy than we did after the 1970s oil embargo. we have ignored the opportunity and we are paying that price. we should be investing more in our and the. we need to be concerned about those investments just staying in the laboratories. we have to work quickly into the private sector and shake the market and provide concessionary financing so we can use these technologies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and keep our economy competitive so i think we are in agreement that we can do things to improve our environmental stewardship while
5:52 am
improving our energy security including getting access to some of montana's resources. .. >> one area where we have put the technology in the field, where this is not the government that is causing a reduction in the productivity, but the private sector, because of the natural forces, is natural gas. there was a huge reduction in natural gas. this has everything to do with the fact that we have been so good in implementing this, we have shale technology and natural gas went from $13, this was $3.33. this is a product of competition, supply and demand, so the slide that you had on
5:53 am
their, about natural gas, and the natural gas is because we did work, we were applying this in the field. we have plenty of natural gas. we have so much that we need to use more of this. down on some of that cold, we will send you some natural gas. >> we should be able to use more of that natural gas. as i put up there on the slide could be a game-changer that that is a huge opportunity to increase our energy security in pupil to put policies in place however to get that into the marketplace. thank you all very much. >> anybody like a copy of karen's presentation, she will be happy to supply that for you. thank you karen. you can see is a very interesting topic, something very important to the state by nation and in our nation for gornick speaker is kathleen mcginty and kathleen is a
5:54 am
founding partner of pair technology partners, llc firm focused on the commercialization of clean technology and an operating partner at alamance llc, a private equity from investing in the early and mid-state clean technology companies. in july 2008 ms. mcginty step down as secretary of defense of an apartment as chair of the pennsylvania energy development authority, where she helped bring more than $1 billion in new investment and creating some 3,000 new jobs. your service in pennsylvania ms. mcginty chaired of the white house council of environmental quality under president clinton and under the environmental advisers to then senator al gore. please welcome kathleen mcginty. kathleen. [applause] good to see you again.
5:55 am
>> thank you very much governors and for hanging in there, the tail end of this very good session that you have had and to governor barbour for hosting us all, thank you very much. his vinnie fine seven malkin we have had. i wanted to share i guess especially in light of the tremendous expertise here all of you, many of you governors, governor switzer for example have tremendous expertise in things energy and can hold forth in great detail as best as any of us can, so they are just three points i thought i would share today. before i do i did want to both complement karen on her presentation and comment on a couple of things she had to say. on nuclear programs for example, one of the cats that i wear today is as a director on the board of directors of a company called nrg. you might have heard of energy, energy. we have been in the news especially since last october
5:56 am
since there is a banter of a little bit of an interest by exelon in nrg and we have our shareholders meeting about that very proposition tomorrow but we happen to be the first to file, to build a new nuclear plants in the united states and from anne r.g.'s perspective this administration has been very thorough and forward looking on nuclear program moving right along with the loan guarantees so we are very pleased and what we see. on the oil and gas, i want to echo some of the comments made to my experience, especially when previously as secretary of ddp and pennsylvania, we oversee a very robust, we'll versailles robust oil and gas program. our experience is it is all about price for the wind the price is high the investment is there and as the price of oil went up, we saw a tremendous explosion of the interest in developing the oil and gas resources that we have so that
5:57 am
by the time i step down as secretary last year, we actually were permitting 8,000 new wells every year, so for me the big driver is price and if the cost is there the prices there, the investments will follow. let me come to a couple of points that i would love to share with all of you today. first as a country we have been a little bit fickle about the energy agenda. it is on our minds and if we pay attention in one year and the price comes down and we have other tngs that occupy our attention so first an argument that we need to stick and stay with this agenda for the second, not only that we need to, but that we should want to, that this is about offense and not just defense in terms of what is coming at us in the global energy economy. and third, that if we do steak and stay, that there is a very significant upside for us, our economy and our security in pursuing a robust energy agenda.
5:58 am
coming back to the top, in terms of we need to stick and stay here. oil, we saw the oil price spikes of last year. we have a sense right now, the crisis is over, the prices come down and it certainly has from the $140 a barrel but while we haven't been paying attention we have the price of energy since its low in february. if you look at the global picture in terms of oil resources, what we are saying is that as compared to the '70s where it was very much about geopolitics, it is much more about the geology. it is much more about the fundamentals then things that goal today. so, the international energy agency for example, for the first time ever last year went and examined each of the 800 major oilfields in the world, and their report was that those
5:59 am
field still producing, yes but very much on the decline. in fact, at the risk of predicting where. >> translator: , their estimate was just to keep pace with current levels of production of oil, that we would need to find 4x, saudi arabia's current production annually. if you figure in we are anticipated growth in demand does that number looks like 6x. those are makar numbers. we can look individual oilfields. one that is of particular interest and concern to the united states, mexico's major field is the cantrell field. importance to us because until recently mexico was the second leading supplier of oil and because oil is such an important part of


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on